Total posts: 10
Posted in:
I am Pat. I have done 2 debates here. I am here now because I failed to find a thread on forums, I am trying to do it through my phone (Android) and failed to find. Can someone assist me?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Solaris1
Skeptical theism, as a response to the problem of evil, states that we cannot see God's intentions and therefore cannot claim the evil in the world disproves God.
The main problem with this manipulation attempt is that we do not need to see "intention" of god. That is completely irrelevant.
Whatever reason he might have, he just can reach that without allowing evil as he is omnipotent and omniscient.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
No, not same at all. Not even remotely close.
you are integrating new parts, instead of removing the original ones and putting something new to the removed parts. You integrate new parts to the ship, those new parts now can host you, you moved there and disconnected the old one. The ship stays there as it is, parts are not even replaced, which was something supposed to happen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Suppose you run an empire. There is no competitors east but there is a larger and more powerful force in the west so you move your territory east and east every time, adding new territory to the east and removing those in the west. You are adding eastern soil to your collection, removing western ones so they are not yours anymore. This happened, well kinda. The Huns used to live in where Russia is now, but now their descendants live in Hungary with no territorial overlap.
Is this analogy adequate and valid?
A ship is an assemble of its parts.
In theseus' ship allegory, the parts of the assemble is replaced with other parts, not someone that is located on the ship gradually assembling new parts to stand on and then cutting the ties with the initial ship but in your analogy, someone is situated in an assembly (assembly of drops of soils), he adds extra parts to the assembly, moves to them and cuts its ties with the original one. That is not what Theseus' ship allegory is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
There is nothing to suggest it was 'mockery' on the behalf of Pilate or the Romans. Any suggested mockery came from the Jew population and they, the bible states, protested that Pilate ordered the inscription on the cross head claiming Jesus to be " king of the Jews".
There ARE verses to conclude it was "mockery", both on Pilates' and the Romans' part and the Jews'. Here are they:
NIV Matthew 27:29:30 "... They put a staff in his right hand. Then they knelt in front of him and mocked him. “Hail, king of the Jews!” they said. 30 They spit on him, and took the staff and struck him on the head again and again. 31 After they had mocked him, they took off the robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him away to crucify him."
Matthew 27:37: "Above his head they placed the written charge against him: this is jesus, the king of the jews."
NIV Mark 15:11-13: "But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead. 12 “What shall I do, then, with the one you call the king of the Jews?” Pilate asked them. 13 “Crucify him!” they shouted."
NIV Mark 15:17-20: "They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him. 18 And they began to call out to him, “Hail, king of the Jews!” 19 Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him. 20 And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him."
NIV John 19:14-15: "“Here is your king,” Pilate said to the Jews. 15 But they shouted, “Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!” “Shall I crucify your king?” Pilate asked. “We have no king but Caesar,” the chief priests answered."
Also, let us now turn into historical aspect:
Even if Pilate's intention was not rhetoric or mockery, did Pilate have an authority to assign Israel a king? Even more, someone assigned would count as a king as per the Old Testament or Jewish view? That are the questions we will have to settle down in order to assess if Jesus was ruler of Israel as per Pilate's recognition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
You didn't actually raise anything to refute any of what I said.
You did not have anything to refute, just put numbers. that is all.
I elaborated all of them, all of which turned out to be false.
At the moment, you are doing what you suggest of others, asserting. Assertions is not evidence.
That is why Jesus matches nothing. You asserted without any back up, assertions are not evidences.
Obviously, these things are open to discussion, hence the name of the topic. But given that it is a subject open to discussion, means ipso facto, that NO ONE can demonstrate on either side of the discussion, the other side is wrong. Or simply based on popular myth. That would be to put the cart before the horse. Now having an opinion is one thing. Asserting it is truth is another.
No, these things are not even discussable: Jesus side is unable to do anything as all of their claims are baseless, and still debunked easily (like Micah 5:2 and Isaiah 9:7 being good example).
Jesus side is clearly shown to be wrong.
Micah 2 for instance has a couple of prophecies contained within it.
Baseless assertion. Assertions are not evidence.
One is that the person - whoever it is must be born in Bethlehem. Another one as you have pointed out is that they must rule "Israel".
Elaborate. Otherwise, again, baseless assertion.
They are two separate
Point out 2 people from Micah 5:2.
Many people have ruled Israel that were not born in Bethlehem. Think of all the kings including Herod who have ruled Israel.
Off-topic. Has nothing to do with our subject, has nothing against Micah 5:2.
I would also suggest that "ruling Israel" is a term that may have many interpretations.
Arbitrary, imaginary, baselessly interpretations do not hold. If you can in interpret in the way it suits you, I can interprete in the way it goes against you. Both are equally.
Messiah is clearly more than a political figure
Baseless assertion but has nothing to do with our subject.
Politicity or apoliticity of messiah has nothing to do with Jesus not matching Micah 5:2.
he is also the representative of God, a spiritual being
Baseless assertion
His ruling will of necessity be in line with whatever God would perceive, not necessarily a human point of view.
Necessarily a human point of view, it is necessity as humans are to spot the messiah. If the sign is not in my sight, how could I spot that it is god's promised messiah?
It is interesting that Jewish History prior to the appointments of kings to the land had people - judges - who ruled but were not kings. Ruling in that sense was not as a king - but as a judge ruling.
Again, off-topic. Who said "micah 5:2 claimant must be a king"?. If judges ruled,did Jesus have the powers that ruler-judges had?
Jesus according to the gospel stories had quite a following - disciples - and many would say he arose in a time that was needed for what the "rulers" and judges were about.
Does having disciples and "quite a following" qualify you to be a judge? IF so, elaborate and back it up. What were the credentials, qualifications and attributes of those judges? Elaborate and see if Jesus meets them. Waiting.
In the Gospels stories for that matter, we also had Pilot, Rome's man in Israel. A very powerful man. He according to the Gospels, spoke with Jesus - and after hearing Jesus declare he himself was a king, though not of this world, seemed to become quite wary of this man. The words he commanded to be written and placed upon Jesus' head on the cross - were "this man is the King of the Jews" are significant.
So, your claim for "Jesus being ruler of Israel" relies on Pilate Pontius' assignment? In that case, Jesus at best could be a "vassal", an "appointee", a "viceroy" of THE ROMANS, not "ruler of israel." Btw, that label Pilate inserted on him was a mockery but let us ignore that for your sake.
How can Jesus be a king if he was not the ACTUAL king of Israel? That is one of the questions of the ages.
No such question exists, as he was not a king.
You can try and dismiss the church as some weird platonic institution, but I won't. And many others don't.
Does not matter. Micah 5:2 is talking about ISRAEL, not some kind of platonic kingdom. The reference is the verse, not you or many others.
Micah is a prophecy in line with all of the other prophecies in the OT. It is not and never was meant to be solely based on a national race. Yes, the Messiah would come from that line. Jesus was a Jew.
Again, these all are irrelevant to our discussion. We are assessing if Jesus matches Micah 5:2. Claimant's nationality, race, ethnicity has nothing to do with our subject as none of them are in the scope of Micah 5:2.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
even I thought the theologian listing these was stretching in some cases.
That is why I proposed to pick 5 of them and debate that 5 in particularbut as you opt to not debate it due to your busy schedule, we can discuss and assess it here (on forums) but not 5 of course. It is better to go 1 by 1.
Yet to DENY any and all of them is just being silly. Your assertion that every one of them is either taken out of context or mistranslated is coming from a place of prejudice, not understanding.
To think even 1 of them is matched by Jesus is based on imposed popular myths, not understanding. It is open to be discussed. 9 years ago, I have analysed all of such assertions, like from 365prophecies.com etc. I discovered even thousands of assertions.
The passage you selected from Micah is a good example of your prejudice. The passage is referring to Bethlehem as the place where the messiah would be born. This is where the religious scribes of Herod and indeed most of Israel understood the birth of the Messiah was going to be.
Jesus does not match that whomever it is talking about: In order to claim someone matches Micah 5:2, that someone must have ruled over Israel because the verse talks about someone who will rule over israel will be born in Bethlehem.
The prophecy then is whether the messiah was born in Bethlehem -not whether specifically he was going to be the rule of a political kingdom of Israel. Ruling is actually a separate prophecy. But surely you knew that!
The one that is stated to be born in Betlehem in Micah 5:2 is, in the same verse, said to rule over Israel. Both of these attributes belong to the same person. To claim someone matches it, someone must have had both of them: 1) Born in Betlehem 2) Ruled Israel
Messiah is not specifically a political figure. Yes, it could be, I suppose, but not specifically.
Messiah beig political or apolitical has nothing to do with Jesus matching or failing to match the verse.
Now you may not believe or care about the church. Yet the church, and every Christian denomination in this world declares that Jesus is the king of the church. This whether you agree is a good thing or not is a very large organisation - which is larger than any country in the world today. It is a kingdom. ...This kingdom - spiritual kingdom - has been ongoing for at least 2000 years and will continue on as the largest religion in this world until at least halfway through this century. Maybe longer. History has a strange way of doing things.
The verse is talking about RULER OF ISRAEL, not ruler of a Platonic, spiritual or some kind of international institution.
Now, I may seem non-constructive in these writings of mine but my intention is to make people realise that prophecies Jesus is asserted to have fulfilled are distortions. Such seemingly minor details (like Kingdom of Church vs Ruler of Israel) are important nuances to realise them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
No let's not ignore this little gem of yours. Here is a list I found in Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine by a theologian I don't even agree with most of the time. I also think some of these are perhaps a bit of a stretch. Yet to say that not EVEN one of these was fulfilled is a much bigger stretch. More than that - it is simply untrue.
It would be better for YOU if it was ignored. All of them are either a mistranslation or taken out of context. Jesus fullfills none. IF you want, we can debate them in the debate section (but of course time limit may not allow me to elaborate on all of them. If you want, we can select 5 and have them elaborated on 1 debate). So, I skip it. As you touched this point in this post of yours, let me give you quick demonstrations of that. Here, you mention Micah 5:2 among the list of the prophecies suppposedly fulfilled by Jesus.
Micah 5:2, born in Bethlehem, Luke 2:4-7
Here is Micah 5:2: "“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans[b] of Judah, but of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”"
Even when the verse is taken out of context, Jesus still fails.
The verse talks of someone who will rule over Israel. Jesus never ruled over Israel or anywhere else except in the dreamland of Jesus and his followers where he had Platonic kingdom.
To assert someone matches this verse, that someone must have ruled over Israel. But if you read the verse in context, that to-be-born-in-Bettlehem of Micah 5:2 was to be peace when Assyrians invade Israel. Micah 5:5: "And he will be our peace when the Assyrians invade our land and march through our fortresses. We will raise against them seven shepherds, even eight commanders," If you read the verse in context, Micah 5:2 is talking of a military leader, which Jesus never was.
Or Isaiah 9:7: "Of the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this."
When did Jesus have such government? Did Jesus reign on David's throne?Only someone who reigned on the throne of David and established neverlasting peace can be claimed to match this. Jesus died almost 2000 years ago and world never had peace till now - Jesus does not match it.
Jesus matching a prophecy is the most common myth ever. 1/3 of the world believes it due to being brainraped to believe so since the time they are born.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Hi Pat,Actually the bible does not use the virgin birth as one of the signs "so that people can know that a certain individual is indeed the Messiah".
Hi.
The bible uses none of all those alleged prophecies as "so that people can know that a certain individual is the messiah". That is a common sense, that is why NT writers often invented them.
People in Jesus' time in the main were not aware of the passage from the OT. Some were. But not the main. Some of the scholars (around the time of Herod the Great) knew the approximate time of the Messiah's birth and the region he was to be born. Presumably, they along with most of the ordinary people in Jesus time were aware of the approximate time of his coming - (this explains why everyone was expecting a messiah at that time) but what was generally known is that the messiah would be of David's line and born in David's town - Bethlehem. Hence the often heard cry, Son of David.The virgin birth is used by the writers of Matthew and Luke to demonstrate the validity of Jesus as the Messiah using ancient prophecy. This wasn't however something necessarily know to the ordinary person - but probably only to the readers of the OT (Greek version). How many could read? I don't know.
Matt Dillahunty famously said "claims are not evidences". The cherry picked gospels do portray the people of the time and the geography as you put it here, but that is all. What other evidence do we have that the experts of the Old Testament of the time were indeed anticipating a messiah during that eon?
I mean, read the Talmud etc of the eon preceeding and coinciding with the approximate era of Jesus - has any of them expecting messiah, say Talmudic accounts of 50 BCE saying "it is forecasted that the messiah is to come with-in 50-100 years"?
Hence, your scenario is quite apt - especially if the virgin birth was being used to verify Jesus as the Messiah. In fact, Mary his mother was often with Jesus, so she could testify to it. Yet, I doubt she ever did - except to Joseph her husband, Elizabeth her cousin and possibly Jesus and the writers of the gospels.
No no no. You make it even worse.
The scenario that is apt is actually the scenario of the gospel Matthew is accused of having written.
But the bolded part makes it even worse. Do you really think Mary opened her genitals and displayed it to the gospel writers so that they can testify she really was virgin?
A medic shall help us: would she stay virgin even after giving birth? Would that childbirth not destroy virginity? Iwoud guess It does not need to be destroyed externally, I think even an internal blow like begetting a child could destroy it.
It actually didn't need to be verified to prove his messiahship. It was already done so in the Prophecies - that is all that was required.
To begin with, there is no even a single prophecy Jesus matches but let us ignore it.
It would need to be verified. After all, as you yourself put it here, the prophecies are to verify the claim and Matthew shows this virgin birth as a prophecy to have been fullfilled by Jesus. So, it does need to be verified.
But it would be a very funny, ridiculous and hilarious prophecy if it really was.
Created:
Posted in:
The virgin birth was one of the signs so that people can know that a certain individual is indeed the messiah? It does not make any sense.
Imagine you are Jew, say, in the year 29 CE. You met someone named Jesus of Nazareth, a Messiah claimant. How could you know that he was born virgin? Prophecies are to be observed so that you can detect it occurred. How could I be watching each and every newborn and say "it is from virgin".
This prophecy is never verifiable for outsiders, but then how is that a prophecy? :)
Created: